Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Belz...]

Only if you could actually use it to produce energy or work.

So far, it only seems to destroy work, producing nothing. Doesn't seem to be perpetual motion, but it does appear to be a violation of conservation laws.

 

[Christophera]

Oh, that was hilarious, chris. Squareness of the debris cloud! Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.



Of course, this doesn't explain how your core is still standing AFTER you say it was detonated.

No need to repeat yourself.

The concept of separate, delayed detonations explains why the lower part of the concrete core stands momentarily.

 

[Christophera]

What difference will it make if you are right and it is a concrete core?

What difference would it be if it was a controlled demoliton?

What do you really want to know?

All your discussions and attemps will bring you there >>> Dead End! <<<

So why are you fooling everone in here?

Thanks for demonstrating the generic, typical (non) explanation

Concrete can fracture to fall instantly

 

[uruk]

No need to repeat yourself.

The concept of separate, delayed detonations explains why the lower part of the concrete core stands momentarily.

Why on earth would they use delayed detonation? why not just detonate everything all at once?

 

[Christophera]

Why on earth would they use delayed detonation? why not just detonate everything all at once?

Consider the insurance companies did not want to totally replace 8 square blocks of NYC in addition to the WTC.

 

[T.A.M.]

Christophera:

So your theory is that Silverstein got permission from the insurance companies to blow up the WTCs, just as long as didn't ruin the "whole block" so to speak. They drew the line there.

OMG that is so insane.

TAM

 

[Christophera]

That's what I'm asking you. How do you know what you claim to know? Other than a few pictures from over a mile away and a non-existent documentary, what do you have as proof? You talk of reason, but all you have is speculation. To gain reason, you need to found your arguments with evidence instead.


I can't reasonably explain it because you can't provide me with enough information to make a proper judgement. You are deluding yourself if you think that you can know that the item in that horribly pixelated photograph is definately made of concrete. That is absolutely impossible.

The fact that you can't recognize this is proof that you're too close to this, you're no longer being objective. I would seriously recommend re-evaluating your work from a more objective viewpoint.

http://concretecore.741.com

Has plenty of evidence. You do not want to make a proper judgment.

 

[Christophera]

Christophera:

So your theory is that Silverstein got permission from the insurance companies to blow up the WTCs, just as long as didn't ruin the "whole block" so to speak. They drew the line there.

OMG that is so insane.

TAM

Your notion, your problem.


I never said anything like that.

Our daily lesson in presumption.

 

[uruk]

Consider the insurance companies did not want to totally replace 8 square blocks of NYC in addition to the WTC.

So your saying the insurance companies were in on the conspiracy? What did the insurance companies have to gain? CharginghHigher premium rates and dealing with customer complaints and migration to thier competitors?
A business that is conspiring to payout cash rather than making cash is a bit too much for credability.

Anyhoo that's a lame excuse. all the explosive going off at the same time would not cause an more or less damage than if they were delayed. total release of energy would all add up to be the same.

 

[Christophera]

Is there any chance of this thread reaching a conclusion sometime this decade? It just seems to be going around in circles perpetually.

Hmmm... Would this thread classify as a perpetual-motion device for the JREF prize?

No.

Perpetual-NOTION device

It is not my notion, I USE evidence. The deniers here ABUSE evidence.

They do this because they have a fear driven obsession, an erroneous notion that lies can serve our human purposes.

 

[Christophera]

So your saying the insurance companies were in on the conspiracy? What did the insurance companies have to gain? CharginghHigher premium rates and dealing with customer complaints and migration to thier competitors?
A business that is conspiring to payout cash rather than making cash is a bit too much for credability.

Anyhoo that's a lame excuse. all the explosive going off at the same time would not cause an more or less damage than if they were delayed. total release of energy would all add up to be the same.

Hit your head again homer.

Because the delays are over time so you don't use addition to observe effects of each small detonation.

 

[Senor_Pointy]

Your notion, your problem.


I never said anything like that.

Our daily lesson in presumption.

No, Chris, the "concrete core" is your "notion." (As well as the "Insurance companies were in on it," and "The towers were built to be destroyed")

This has ceased to be productive, funny, on even tolerable. You need to get help.

 

[T.A.M.]

Consider the insurance companies did not want to totally replace 8 square blocks of NYC in addition to the WTC.

You're such a f&*king liar. Look above. In response to someone asking you why "they" didn't detonate everything at once, you responded with the comment quoted above.

That statement, your statement, makes claim that the insurance companies did not want replace 8 blocks in addition to the WTCs, and that is why they didn't detonate everything at once.

Make no wonder started ignoring you. What has gotten into me, to actually acknowledge even one of your insane statements.

Carry on whacko!!!

TAM

 

[uruk]

Answer the question about the insurance companies. Your post directly implied that the insurance companies did not want to " totaly replace 8 square blocks of NYC". That means you are saying that the insurance companies had knowledge of or were impicated in the destruction of the WTC.
So how about it? Are you saying that the insurance companies were involved? Show your evidence.

Because the delays are over time so you don't use addition to observe effects of each small detonation

I'm not sure what your saying here. I don't think you phrased the statement correctly. Can you rephrase the statement so that I may understand what it is you are saying?

 

[Christophera]

Answer the question about the insurance companies. Your post directly implied that the insurance companies did not want to " totaly replace 8 square blocks of NYC". That means you are saying that the insurance companies had knowledge of or were impicated in the destruction of the WTC.
So how about it? Are you saying that the insurance companies were involved? Show your evidence.


I'm not sure what your saying here. I don't think you phrased the statement correctly. Can you rephrase the statement so that I may understand what it is you are saying?

homer, if you cannot understand what I've posted, the concept is beyond you. Which figures or you wouldn't have made the error to begin with.



As far as the insurance issue, I can only say that the association between the insurance companies and the folks that set the detonators is something which is also beyond you. You will just have to continue your life in ignorance.

Unless some the brighter "black lights" here can find away to explain it.

 

[Christophera]

I still can't post links but chris there is a very well researched site to be found at www (a period here) 911myths (and another) com which has rebuttals for your silly questions; questions that you have been repeating over and over again with seemingly no other point besides to increase your post count.

There is substantial proof (if you click on the button labelled "WTC (demolition)" and then go to the link labelled "The towers fell at free fall speeds") that the towers did NOT fall at free fall speeds, so you can cut that crap out right now.

Secondly, the point at which the towers were hit has little bearing on the actual time at which they fell, if you'd be so kind as to click on WTC (other) then "Fire wouldn't have brought down one tower so much quicker than the other".

I'll leave it to you to explore that site. However, I think honestly that anyone arguing here further is rather pointless, since noone is going to change their points of view; but chris, I believe your view is rather dogmatic. Everyone could have gone about this a bit more rationally though - if someone ignores your post and continues to ask about theories that you have already debunked, then he is clearly just a senseless troll, and therefore is not looking for answers anyway. He has clearly disregarded any evidence contrary to his beliefs, and has blatantly ignored video evidence in some cases (I cannot say he did so for the entire thread, because I am not going to read ~100 pages of this garbage).

Fact - he is just a troll, so ignore him. He will never change his views, nor will he change ours. The difference is, while he's arguing with noone, you could be reading a book, working on a project, masterbating, etc. You all get my drift?

EDIT: Garnos: Yeah, that's kind of my point. Chris keeps bringing up points, people prove that those points are completely invalid, and chris just ignores these proofs and reposts his questions. These people, in Australia (as you would know) are often labelled, quite correctly, idiots.

I've seen that site and they do not have the images i use on the site, so there can hardly be answers to my questons about them there.

I would be surprised if you actually know the meaning of the word "idiot". Like twinstead doesn't actually know the origin of "insane".

 

[Christophera]

as I thought . . no answer to the question I posed - there can be no answer, ever

eta: OK, say it's your core, assuming that IS YOUR CORE!!! Then what next? Show me c4 blowing your core in the cloud, don't show me the initial collapse and say 'there's an explosion! Thats lunacy. This is your problem, if you are right and that is your core then you are still wrong about everything else

eta: ASSUMING YOUR CORE is standing in the cloud of the collapsed tower, what caused said tower to collapse?????

The word collapse is post tense. Things do break after collapsing. What is in this image is beyond broken, it is pulverized. Nothing has hit the ground yet.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3254&stc=1&d=1159128271

 

[Oliver]

Thanks for demonstrating the generic, typical (non) explanation

Concrete can fracture to fall instantly

Thank you, too - for "non-answering" good questions.

 

[Christophera]

What difference would it be if it was a controlled demoliton?

What do you really want to know?

All your discussions and attemps will bring you there >>> Dead End! <<<

So why are you fooling everone in here?

It would make a different world.

I want to know if folks are still capable of responding with an understanding of love and courage.

Not a dead end, a long journey. You don't have the vision to see where it leads nor the determination/concern/courage to arrive at the destination.

I had to think about my answers and did not post them because of your post above this one which evaded, again, my question. Think about your answers to my question then try and provide them.

 

[uruk]

homer, if you cannot understand what I've posted, the concept is beyond you. Which figures or you wouldn't have made the error to begin with.



As far as the insurance issue, I can only say that the association between the insurance companies and the folks that set the detonators is something which is also beyond you. You will just have to continue your life in ignorance.

Unless some the brighter "black lights" here can find away to explain it.

HOOWEE! What a copout! You still havent answered the question.

Your not answering the question. It requires a simple response. Yes or no.
Do you believe that the insurance companies were involved. If so, What is your evidence.

If you mean bad grammer is beyond my comprehension then I agree. In fact your response is still filled with applingly bad grammer.
I asked for clarification because of your use of the english language somewhat rudimenary. The way in which you orderd the words in your statement is incomprehensible. Or is that your debate tatics. "If you can't dazzle them with facts, baffle them with gibberish."

If english is not your primary language, Then I apologise. In which case; can someone tell me what Christophera means by "Because the delays are over time so you don't use addition to observe effects of each small detonation"?